Flytyer makes a good point, I am familiar with those waters... however, what percentage of these designations (in terms of quantity) are natural barrier water vs. not?

If all of these removed designations are on the other side of natural barriers then a wild salmon / steelhead policy seems moot, unless we are talking about waters like the upper Skykomish in which case it makes perfect sense.

If we can take away, and that we've proven we can do VERY well, then why not give something free to our inseparable partner in survival, mother nature?

I'd be curious to see if these designations make anadromous sense (per above logic) or not. It would be a refreshing first if it did.

What I find disturbing about this is that the impetus behind it is to expedite further exploitation of these watersheds in the typically self-centered manner with the greenback leading the charge - where the original designation was intended to provide a layer of protection for these species which we have already pounded into submission.